From: Randall Randall (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jun 15 2004 - 12:48:26 MDT
On Jun 15, 2004, at 1:53 PM, fudley wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 "Randall Randall" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> If morality is truly objective then any correlation between the
>>> of a person and the readings on the meter are purely coincidental,
>>> might as well flip a coin as look at the meter.
>> In the same way as the objectivity of length
>> means that any correlation between a person's
>> estimate of a distance and the readings on an
>> odometer are purely coincidental?
> If I estimate that the edge of a cliff is 100 feet away and I walk 60
> feet toward it there will be consequences if the edge is really only 50
> feet away; but if the meter says putting on a green hat on Thursday is
> horribly evil and I do it anyway there are no consequences to me or
> anybody else.
Is it really the case that you believe "objective" means
"random", or "without evidence"?
I don't know whether there is an objective morality in a
provable sense, but I'm not sure why you (seem to) believe
that the fact that various humans differ about morality
indicates that there is no possibility of progress in
-- Randall Randall <email@example.com> Property law should use #'EQ , not #'EQUAL .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT